Tag Archives: liberty

United States Is Still Best Laboratory for the Potential of Liberty

M. Zuhdi Jasser president and founder of The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD)and author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight for His Faith released the following statement to commemorate the Fourth of July:

“As we come together to celebrate the Fourth of July this week, it is only appropriate to take a moment to reflect on the importance of this day. When those 55 men signed their name on the Declaration of Independence they not only declared their independence from the British crown, but demonstrated for all humanity that our Creator intended us to be free. In so doing they reclaimed faith from the crown and vested it in the hands of the people.

These brave actions culminated in the grand experiment that is America. While there are certainly conflicts that divide us, there is no place where I as an American Muslim can live, practice my faith and pursue happiness that is as free and as just as the United States.

As we celebrate our Independence, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy takes as a solemn duty our call to demonstrate to the youth and in particular the Muslim youth of America the importance of maintaining vigilance over the rights that are ordained from our creator, but guaranteed by our Constitution. Our Muslim Liberty Project aims to teach our children that government based in reason that embraces the right of every individual to accept or reject faith as they see fit is not in conflict with their Islamic faith and in reality provides the safest environment for Muslims to exist.

With the changes in the Middle East and the rise of Islamists to power in the region that duty becomes even more important. The threat posed by the radicalization of our youth in American Muslim communities is as palpable today as it has ever been. As we have seen in Norway in just the past week, Al Qaeda in Yemen is not sitting idly by waiting to find ways to attack us. They are engaged and working every day to get beyond our defenses.

If we inoculate our American Muslim youth against the ideology of Islamism and its inherent pathway towards radicalization, we keep the wolves at bay and leave room for these youth to embrace the values of Americanism that were put into action with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Take time on this holiday to thank the founding fathers for their courage and their conviction. May God Bless the United States of America and may God keep and protect those in the U.S. military that fight to maintain that freedom for us.”

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. AIFD’s mission advocates for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. For more information on AIFD, please visit our website at http://www.aifdemocracy.org.

Everyday People and the American Revolution

By John W. Whitehead

We elevate the events of the American Revolution to near-mythical status all too often and forget that the real revolutionaries were people just like you and me. Caught up in the drama of Red Coats marching, muskets exploding and flags waving in the night, we lose sight of the enduring significance of the Revolution and what makes it relevant to our world today. Those revolutionaries, by and large, were neither agitators nor hotheads. They were not looking for trouble or trying to start a fight. Like many today, they were simply trying to make it from one day to another, a task that was increasingly difficult as Britain’s rule became more and more oppressive.

The American Revolution did not so much start with a bang as with a whimper—a literal cry for relief from people groaning under the weight of Britain’s demands. The seeds of discontent had been sown early on. By the time the Stamp Act went into effect on November 1, 1765, the rumbling had become a roar.

The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament with no representation from the colonies (thus raising the battle cry of “no taxation without representation”), required that revenue stamps be affixed to all printed materials. It was an onerous tax that affected every colonist who engaged in any type of business. Outraged at the imposition, the colonists responded with a flood of pamphlets, speeches and resolutions. They staged a boycott of British goods and organized public protests, mass meetings, parades, bonfires and other demonstrations.

Mercy Otis Warren was an active propagandist against the British and a prime example of the critical, and often overlooked, role that women played in the Revolution. Historian Nina Baym writes, “With the exception of Abigail Adams, no woman in New England was more embroiled in revolutionary political talk than Mercy Otis Warren.” Warren penned several plays as a form of protest, including The Group in 1775. As Baym writes: “The Group is a brilliant defense of the revolutionary cause, a political play without a patriot in it. In letting the opposition drop their masks of decency, Warren exposes them as creatures of expediency and selfishness, men who are domestic as well as political tyrants.”

Although Parliament repealed the Stamp Tax in 1766, it boldly moved to pass the Townshend Acts a year later. The Townshend Acts addressed several issues. First, any laws passed by the New York legislature were suspended until the colony complied with the Quartering Act, which required that beds and supplies be provided for the king’s soldiers. And duties (or taxes) were imposed on American imports of glass, lead, paint, paper and tea.

Americans responded in outrage through printed materials and boycotts. In Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer, which appeared in newspapers and pamphlets, attorney John Dickinson argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes for revenue. He also cautioned that the cause of liberty be advanced with moderation. But as historians George Brown Tindall and David Emory Shi write, “Such conciliatory language led John Adams to dismiss Dickinson as a ‘piddling genius.’” Samuel Adams responded by organizing protests in Boston. And in 1768, Samuel Adams and James Otis circulated a letter throughout the colonies that reiterated their concerns about the illegality of British taxation and asked for support from the other colonists. When an official in London ordered that the letter be withdrawn, they refused. By 1773, Samuel Adams had convinced the Boston town meeting to form a “Committee of Correspondence,” a group of protesting American colonists. The Committee issued a statement of rights and grievances and invited other towns to do the same.

Thereafter, Committees of Correspondence sprang up across Massachusetts. And in 1773, the Virginia Assembly proposed the formation of Committees of Correspondence on an inter-colonial basis. A network of committees spread across the colonies, mobilizing public opinion and preventing colonial resentments from boiling over. As a result, the Committees of Correspondence played a critical role in the unification of the colonies. Author Nat Hentoff writes:

In 1805, Mercy Otis Warren—in her History of the Rise and Progress and Termination of the American Revolutions, emphasized: “Perhaps no single step contributed so much to cement the union of the colonies, and the final acquisition of independence, as the establishment of the Committees of Correspondence . . . that produced unanimity and energy throughout the continent.” These patriots spread the news throughout the colonies about such British subversions of fundamental liberties as the general search warrant that gave British customs officers free reign to invade homes and offices in pursuit of contraband.

We would do well to remember that, in the end, it was the courage and resolve of common, everyday people that carried the day. Courage was a key ingredient in the makeup of the revolutionaries. The following vignette offers a glimpse of one man’s strong stand in the face of the British army.

Two months before the battles of Lexington and Concord, the British sent Colonel Leslie with 240 men to seize arms and ammunition which the rebels had stored in Salem. As the troops approached town, residents halted their progress by lifting the Northfield drawbridge. Several inhabitants climbed onto the raised leaf of the bridge and engaged in a shouting match with Colonel Leslie on the other side. William Gavett, an eyewitness, reported the incident:

In the course of the debate between Colonel Leslie and the inhabitants, the colonel remarked that he was upon the King’s Highway and would not be prevented passing over the bridge.

Old Mr. James Barr, an Englishman and a man of much nerve, then replied to him: “It is not the King’s Highway; it is a road built by the owners of the lots on the other side, and no king, country or town has anything to do with it.”

Colonel Leslie was taken aback, but he pressed the issue; James Barr held firm, knowing he was in the right. In the end, Leslie promised to march only fifty rods “without troubling or disturbing anything” if the residents of Salem would lower the bridge. The bridge came down, Leslie kept his word, and the opening battle of the American Revolution was postponed. Old James Barr had taken on the British empire with a few simple words.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling Endangers Freedom

By David E. Smith

As you know by now, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled yesterday to uphold the core provisions of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC). By their decision, we now face an egregious threat to American liberty.

This federal legislation contains a highly controversial and unpopular Individual Mandate, which, if not repealed, will force Americans to “buy” federally approved or sponsored healthcare plans or pay a penalty for non-compliance. Contrary to their promises to Congress as well as to the general public, proponents of the PPAC have succeeded in arguing to the Supreme Court that the Individual Mandate will function as a federal tax. We are very concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent for federal mandates.

We believe this law is a threat to personal liberty, religious freedom and family choices. It gives government bureaucrats alarming power over individual citizen’s healthcare decisions and will lead to future conflicts of conscience. Americans will be forced to choose either to comply and abandon their religious beliefs or resist and be fined for exercising their deeply held beliefs.

The PPAC includes provisions for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilizations, and tax dollars will subsidize many types of abortions. By advancing taxpayer funding of abortion, the PPAC is an attack on religious freedom and individual liberty.

We urge our national lawmakers to repeal the PPAC, and rather than rushing through an expansive overhaul, Congress needs to take a reasonable approach to reforming what’s wrong with healthcare. The federal reach into the lives of each and every American citizen is of grave concern. And the accompanying threats to freedom of conscience challenge the very concept of liberty.

We hope and pray that this monumental decision will be the catalyst to awaken and unite American voters – especially people of faith – this November. It should also serve to remind believers that we should be praying for true revival and the spread of the Gospel. As my friend Pastor James McDonald of Morton, Illinois pointed out on his Facebook page, “Do we understand that the One who orchestrates the end, orchestrates the means, and the means He uses is our faithful witness? Rise up, O Church of God!”

And here’s what others are saying:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will do serious harm to American families. Not only is the individual mandate a profound attack on our liberties, but it is only one section among hundreds of provisions in the law that will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.

“The Obama administration has created, for the first time in American history, new federal regulations that toss aside the constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations.

“It’s now time to replace those leaders who disregarded the constitutional limitations of their authority and the deeply held religious beliefs of their constituents, voting for the government takeover of healthcare. We must repeal this abortion-funding health care law and restore the Constitution to its rightful place.” Tony Perkins. President of the Family Research Council

”We are outraged to see the Supreme Court ignoring the constitutional limits the Founders put in place to constrain the federal government’s power over us. Shame on them!

With this decision they have given a blank check to the federal government, forever altering the constitutional concept of checks and balances that has been so crucial throughout our history.

We wholeheartedly believe we must strive to make health care more affordable for all Americans. But it is inconceivable to believe we must infringe on our constitutional rights in order to achieve that.

Women will be especially hurt by today’s decision. As we have seen with the contraception mandate, the politicization of so-called women issues by the left leaves the majority of women extremely vulnerable to the exploitation of a few radical groups that exert much political influence in Congress and the White House. ~ Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America

“This is a stunning decision to uphold ObamaCare as a tax. Congress relied upon the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court ignored the intent of Congress, which did not intend the mandate to be a tax but rather a penalty. Rulings like this on ObamaCare undermine the confidence of the people in the competency of the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law. Today’s decision damages the image of the Supreme Court and is bad for America.” Mat Staver, Founder and President of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law

“The ‘individual mandate’ was just one problem with the law. Our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize abortion and our Catholic institutions are still being forced to violate our beliefs.

“Congress must act immediately to fix the critical flaws in the health care law and begin to replace them with measured, sensible reforms. At the very least, they should not allow any tax dollars to be used to implement the law while remedies are decided. We encourage them to focus their energy on improving our nation’s health care system in a way that respects all stages of life, protects our consciences, and avoids negatively impacting the economic conditions of Americans.” ~ Matt Smith, President of Catholic Advocate

“It is astonishing that the majority of the justices did not see the bill for what it really is: a blatant violation of the personal freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and perhaps a mortal blow to the concept of federalism… “When a government begins forcing citizens to purchase what it thinks is important or necessary, that government takes a dangerous step away from the freedom-embracing, democratic model.” ~ Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.” ~ U.S. House Speaker John Boehner

“President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history, it will be paid for by young Americans, whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths. Young adults know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation — over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals. Elections have consequences, and young adults will be organizing themselves far more actively than some might assume — they will not settle for leadership that ignores their concerns, limits their freedoms, and continues to bankrupt their futures.” ~Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor

”Today’s Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision upholding the individual mandate in ObamaCare was surprising. The court rejected the Obama Administration’s main argument that the individual mandate was constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It rejected the administration’s second argument that the mandate was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

“However, five justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, concluded that the mandate was constitutional under Congress’ power to tax. As Roberts wrote in his opinion, “Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.”

“That’s the problem in Washington, isn’t it? There’s already way too much spending, and ObamaCare won’t help that. And it is a huge tax increase — $500 billion over the next ten years.” Gary Bauer, American Values

[The previous post extolled the Supreme Court ruling as a victory for the health care needs of poor children. It may be presumed that they believe it is a victory for their families too. This is doubtful seeing many proponents for the poor also are proponents of state rights of the child trumps parental rights. In other words, families don’t count. However, the above comments lack any mention of children, only families, the blatant violation of individual liberty, and the undermining of the principles of federalism. I wonder if we can have cherished freedoms and the American dream and government dictating by force of law how we will achieve it. The above author(s) seem to think otherwise.]

1982-2012: The Rutherford Institute Celebrates 30 Years in the Fight for Freedom in America

“I often believe that John Whitehead is channeling the principles of James Madison, who would be very proud of him.”—Nat Hentoff, nationally syndicated columnist

“The Founding Fathers, reinforced by the famous commentator Alexis de Tocqueville, understood that civic responsibility and civic organizations—these private collections of individuals—were what were to hold the Constitution together. It wasn’t a document just for government officials. And The Rutherford Institute has cultivated the highest level of civic understanding of the Constitution and of the individual responsibility to make the Constitution life and blood in their daily lives and in their professional ambitions. And if The Rutherford Institute is imitated throughout the country, we’re in good stead for the 21st century.”—Bruce Fein, former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute will celebrate its 30th anniversary on June 29, 2012. Over the course of the past 30 years, The Rutherford Institute has grown into a fighting force for freedom, a national organization that commands both attention and respect, with affiliate attorneys and members stretching across the United States. Institute attorneys have defended the rights of countless individuals in their struggle for freedom and human rights in the face of oppressive regimes, both government and private agencies. This assistance has extended into virtually every area of life, including the schools, home, workplace and state and federal agencies. The Rutherford Institute has been privileged to work alongside and defend great freedom fighters, in addition to arguing and winning cases at virtually every court level in the land, including the United States Supreme Court.

“While it is a milestone in the life of any organization, this anniversary is significant not only because of what was begun years ago but because of the work that continues today,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “If we can continue to safeguard the freedoms cherished by so many generations of Americans, we will have done our part to ensure that this nation remains free.”

Founded in 1982, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. The Rutherford Institute has emerged as one of the nation’s leading advocates of civil liberties and human rights, litigating in the courts and educating the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting individual freedom in the United States and around the world.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Restore the American Republic to the American People

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNdQTBNWvE&w=560&h=315]

Restore the American Republic to the American People

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNdQTBNWvE&w=560&h=315]

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Dedicated to American Troops, Video by Endorse Liberty

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbBWEljyYE&w=640&h=360]

For more info about Endorse Liberty, go to www.endorseliberty.com.